Create Webhooks Trigger

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive, which are consistent with a create operation. The description adds that it returns the created object on success (HTTP 201), providing response status. It does not disclose other behaviors like authorization needs, rate limits, or idempotency. Given annotations cover safety, the description adds moderate value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a few sentences covering scope, action, response, required parameter, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the scope statement. However, it includes redundancy (repeats 'Webhooks' twice) and could be more concise. Overall, it is adequate but not exceptionally efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description provides useful context: the scope requirement, the endpoint, and successful response code. It does not describe the structure of the returned object, but that is somewhat acceptable without an output schema. The description is fairly complete for this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter hook_id, which is described as a URL path parameter. The description repeats that hook_id is required and shows the endpoint path, giving context. No additional semantics beyond the schema are provided, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool creates a webhook trigger, with the verb 'creates' and resource 'Webhooks' (though slightly misnamed). It provides the endpoint and required parameter, making the purpose clear. However, there is some confusion by using 'Webhooks' plural when the tool is for creating a trigger, not a webhook itself. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_company_webhooks_triggers, but the context of requiring a hook_id distinguishes it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions that triggers must be created within a company/project scope and lists the required parameter. This gives some context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative webhook tools (e.g., bulk create or company-specific versions). The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.